The Parable of the Tenants

[Polak]

This was today’s Gospel.

I think this can clearly be interpreted as God’s covenant with Jews ending and it being replaced by a covenant with Christians.

Do we agree on this, or does anyone think this isn’t the real meaning of the passage and has a different interpretation of it?

 

[Gorgias]

Do we agree on this, or does anyone think this isn’t the real meaning of the passage and has a different interpretation of it?

No, this isn’t correct. However, it has been used by some to justify claims of a ‘replacement’ or supercessionist theology.

It’s important to recognize the context of this passage. Jesus has already entered Jerusalem, and the Jewish leaders are actively attempting to discredit him. This passage is preceded by controversies in which the leaders attempt to paint Jesus in a corner, vis-a-vis John the Baptist, but He responds in a way that thwarts the leaders’ attempts and reveal their motives.

Now we come to today’s reading. Again, it’s directed at the “chief priests and elders.” The thrust of the parable is that they will seek to kill Him, and therefore they will be replaced by others who follow the will of the owner of the vineyard.

It doesn’t redound to the entirety of the Jewish people.

 

[JerryZ]

No GOD did not break HIS covenant with ALL the jews just those who did not accept the New Covenant and they payed a horrible price for it. We should not rejoice since they are still our elder brothers in the faith and we should always pray for them that their hearts be open to receive Jesus.
Also it is an admonition to us to bear good fruits lest be also be cut from the vine and be burnt.

Peace!

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

There are (usually) always many levels of interpretation for a single passage. The destruction of the Jewish Covenant (or replacement, whatever you want to call what happened on the Cross and in 70AD when Christ judged them) is one meaning. Clearly it is about how God sent them the prophets repeatedly then Jesus and they killed Him (“they” being both specific and general as specific people in a specific time on Earth physically caused the death of Jesus but all people did generally). Also the rejection of Jesus, which is how the Pharisees took it. This is one sense in which St. Thomas took it:

1744 . There follows the intention: come, let us kill him . Let us condemn him to a most shameful death (Wis 2:20). And what is the intention? We will have his inheritance . For they knew from the law that he was supposed to rule over the Jewish people. Hence they feared lest he should impose on them the yoke of law, and destroy their traditions. For this reason they were unwilling to suffer the yoke of Christ; hence they suffered the yoke of the Romans. Hence, and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation (John 11:48). 1745 . Next, the execution of their intention is set down: And taking him, they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him , because they crucified him outside the gate of the city, and thus they killed him as though a foreigner to the vineyard. He will be led as a sheep to the slaughter (Isa 53:7). That they cast him out of the vineyard is found in John, for whoever confessed the name of Christ would be put out of the synagogue (John 9:22). 1737 . And when the time of the fruits drew near . Whoever produces fruit expects a benefit; thus the Lord expects that a benefit be rendered to him to his glory. In the case of one man, the fruit is not in boyhood, but at maturity; hence when he comes to adolescence, then he asks for the fruit. Thus when the people was planted, and the law given, he asked for fruit, and they did not know him. The kite in the air has known her time: the turtle, and the swallow, and the stork have observed the time of their coming: but my people have not known the judgment of the Lord (Jer 8:7). He sent his servants , i.e., the prophets, to the husbandmen , i.e., to the Jews, that they might receive the fruits thereof , i.e., that they might lead men to acting well. Below, behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death (Matt 23:34).

See the rest of the St. Thomas commentary here: Aquinas There are other senses of the passage.

See also this Church Father commentary on it: Chapter 21 - Patristic Bible Commentary

So yeah you aren’t far off the obvious sense of the passage. God bless and keep in His Word

 

[Gorgias]

whatever you want to call what happened… in 70AD when Christ judged them

Pardon? Care to elaborate on that opinion?

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

“The deslotion [i.e. Matthew 24 and similar elsewhere] concerned Jerusalem, of which Christ was speaking literally” (St. Thom). The literal and direct sense of those passages is not about the end of the world but the end of Jerusalem and it’s Temple, and it was a judgment (And Jesus said “you shall see the Son of Man [at this desolation]” in the Gospels, referring to Himself at this event). See also Andrew of Caesarea and other Fathers: "Our Lord foretold the future events to the apostles who were asking about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and about the end of time, as much as they were able to receive. These things already happened, in the siege of Vespasian and Titus, to the Judeans who killed Christ, just as Josephus the Hebrew narrates. - Andrew of Caesarea on [Rev 6:14b-17]"

Eusebius also wrote much of this (the historian not the Arian): “When, then, we see what was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.” Eusebius goes on in a book on Theophany: “On account of all which [he had just talked about the treatment of the Apostles in Jerusalem, etc, early Church struggles], the judgment of God took vengeance on the generation that dared to do all this: and, upon it turned back the (just) consequence of all its deeds. For it was of that generation that their Temple and altar were rooted up, and the kingdom, which had, by tradition from their forefathers, been preserved to that very time, was dissolved. And of the same, was their freedom taken away: and, from the effects themselves it was evident, that the avenging of the blood of all the Righteous was on that generation, in conformity with the words of our Saviour.”

In many such places from St. Justin Martyr up and down the centuries people go on about how it was a judgment from Christ, an old opinion coming straight from the Book itself.

Here is the book on Theophany by Eusebius if you want to read it, it contains a lot of good historical information and detail about how our Lord’s prophecies were fulfilled in that generation: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_theophania_01preface.htm

(not to the exclusion of other senses of Scripture, I am only talking about the very literal level)

Wrapping all of this around to the OP to not be a derail: like I said he isn’t far off the literal sense of the Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers and seen by the events that followed

 

[Gorgias]

The literal and direct sense of those passages is not about the end of the world but the end of Jerusalem and it’s Temple

Actually, it’s widely interpreted as being precisely that – both a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem and a discussion of the eschaton. From verse 30 onward, Christ is talking about the end of the world, and therefore…

and it was a judgment

…therefore, it’s not a “judgment” upon the Jews, as such.

Eusebius also wrote much of this

The fact that he wrote about the fall of Jerusalem doesn’t imply that he considers the entire chapter to be about that single event.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

It isn’t about it being a single event but that it was no matter what other topics the chapter is about, a judgment from God. The issues of which verse breaks, etc, etc, is going on is far too complicated and long for a forum, but it’s a lot. I recommend Andreas/Arethas of Cesaerea (two different people) and basically all of Eusebius for more detailed information going through each specific verse and how they interpret it (they do this, and compared with other Fathers and Josephus one can see what is going on). With the And/Are guys, they interpret even Revelation itself as being about the judgment of them in the wars with the Romans, going over each event and interpreting it

But yes it applies both to Jerusalem and the Eschaton

 

[Dan_Defender]

I agree that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD meant the end of the rituals connected to the old covenant. Even today, Orthodox Jews wear black because they are still mourning the destruction of the Temple.

 

[Carmel]

It was both - the fall of Jerusalem and destruction pf the Temple, which in itself was pointing to the macro destruction of the world at end of time.

 

[Polak]

Last week we had another reading from the gospel on the king and his wedding banquet, that I believe also relates to Jews and them not being ready for the coming of the saviour (that’s what the priest said in his homily).

The reason I think it specifically applies to Jews and not just people generally who don’t accept Christ, is because certain (chosen) people were invited to the banquet, and they were not interested in going. The king then told his men to invite anyone else they see.